User talk:Casliber

Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/0/0 [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024 Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024 Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Arbitration Committee proceedings recent changes purge this page view or discuss this template Case requests Request name Motions Initiated Votes Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/0/0 [edit] Open cases Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024 [edit] Recently closed cases (Past cases) No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requests Request name Motions  Case Posted Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024 Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al none (orig. case) 7 November 2024 Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee none none 7 November 2024 Arbitrator motions No arbitrator motions are currently open. Archives Archive 1: May 2006 – December 2006 Archive 2: December 2006 – February 2007 Archive 3: February 2007 – March 2007 Archive 4: March 2007 - May 2007 Archive 5: May 2007 - June 2007 Archive 6: June 2007 - July 2007 Archive 7: July 2007 Archive 8: July 2007 - August 2007 Archive 9: August 2007 - September 2007 Archive 10: September 2007 - November 2007 Archive 11: November 2007 Archive 12: December 2007 - January 2008 Archive 13: January 2008 Archive 14: January-February 2008 Archive 15: February-April 2008 Archive 16: April-May 2008 Archive 17: May-June 2008 Archive 18: May-June 2008 Archive 19: July-August 2008 Archive 20: September-October 2008 Archive 21: November-December 2008 Archive 22: January 2009 Archive 23: February-March 2009 More unIDed fungi G'day Cas, I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52507572@N00/465979784/?rotated=1&cb=1177065560324 Thanks. --liquidGhoul 10:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Nomenclature of fungi Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus 00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus 04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Cool, keen to see what pops up. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC) I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN 0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN??? LOTS of "per" in citation here. See [1] On Agaricus Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180) Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary. All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous. On Lepiota Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale" Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank. The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation. On Psalliota Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring" Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name. On Amanita Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia. A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in [...] Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that [The species now known as Amanita caesarea] was not mentioned." With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici): A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen. A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s). A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus. A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher. A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries. Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina. The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me). Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830) On Boletus Not including (Not in Agaricaceae, sorry). Phew! Circeus 18:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I hope you intend to clean that prose ASAP? It's definitely not article-worthy as is. Circeus 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) I'm working on it. Got distracted this morning...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC) ndashes HTML ndashes suck. If you're on a Windows box, you can get a real ndash (i.e. unicode) by holding down the ALT key and typing 0150 on the numeric keypad. Hesperian 11:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Hmmm...thanks for the tip. I'll try that next. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for indulging me, dude. :-) Hesperian 00:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC) If, like me, you're stuck with a laptop without a numeric pad with ALT functionality, n- and m-dashes are the two firsts characters after "insert" in the list placed under the edit window. Circeus 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC) FWIW, I've edited my keyboard layout for "easy" dashes with a little Microsoft utility (yes, I use Windows). It takes a while to set up, but now I can add en and em dashes with only two keystrokes—quite an improvement for WP editing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I add shortkeys all the time on various programs. If i used a reallot of weird characters, I'd totally do that to have across windows. Circeus 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Pork LOL, I love your sense of humour. Maimonedes is a good reference. The reality is that Islam takes food restrictions from Judaism; and Christianity doesn't have any restriction (courtesy of three references in the New Testament). The reason why pork should be restricted (along with many other things) is not given explicitly in the Hebrew Bible, hence Bible commentators have been offering guesses since ancient times. My own favourite, however, is Mary Douglas, wife of Louis Leakey, daughter of a Lutheran pastor. Her theory is excellent, based on her cultural anthropological observations, with a decent feel for how Biblical text works. It's rather an abstract theory though. Anyway, I'll see if I can manage a literature review of dietry restrictions in the ANE, especially if there's anything explicit about pork. Don't think I'll find a reference for "why" the pork taboo is in place, though, if it's documented, I'd have read about that in commentaries. Perhaps a clay tablet with the answer has been destroyed in only the last few years during the "troubles" in Iraq. :( Alastair Haines (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC) This is the great thing about uncertainty. Lacking an answer, the reports of Maimonides, Mary Douglas and the other guy mentioned are fascinating.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Scotish pork taboo is a remarkable article! Thanks for that, lol. Alastair Haines (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Spotted this. I'll look for a ref to the Maimonides comment. The normal teaching is that pork is no more or less offensive to Jews than any other forbidden meat (dog, horse etc) or forbidden part of kosher animal (blood, Gid Hanasheh etc). The pig (NB pig, not pork - an important distinction which is relevant for the Maimonides comment too, I note) is "singled out" because it alone of the animals that have one of the two "signs" (it has split hooves but doesn't chew the cud) lies down with its legs sticking out. Most quarapeds have their legs folded under them. There's a midrashic lesson to be learned there, apparently, that the pig is immodestly and falsely proclaiming its religious cleanliness, when it is not. Anyway, that said, I'll look into the M comment - he was quite ahead of his time in terms of medical knowledge (check his biog). And NB my OR/POV antennae buzzed when I read that little section. --Dweller (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Someone has tagged the Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for OR, though the talk page seems to indicate it is for a different reason....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Hmm... makes me more dubious, but I'll check. btw... I'm not Alastair! --Dweller (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Have found good stuff, including online version of Maimonides text. I'll dump it here for you to use as you wish. I maintain that the food which is forbidden by the Law is unwholesome. There is nothing among the forbidden kinds of food whose injurious character is doubted, except pork (Lev. xi. 7), and fat (ibid. vii. 23). But also in these cases the doubt is not justified. For pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter. The principal reason why the Law forbids swine's flesh is to be found in the circumstance that its habits and its food are very dirty and loathsome. It has already been pointed out how emphatically the Law enjoins the removal of the sight of loathsome objects, even in the field and in the camp; how much more objectionable is such a sight in towns. But if it were allowed to eat swine's flesh, the streets and houses would be more dirty than any cesspool, as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks. So, Maimonides argues "pork contains more moisture than necessary [for human food], and too much of superfluous matter", whatever that means! More importantly, the "principal reason" is that if you keep pigs, you end up with a dirty and unhealthy environment. Important note: Maimonides was writing from Islamic Egypt at the time, which is why he mentions "as may be seen at present in the country of the Franks." (ie France) The comments about the pig's habit of lying with its legs outstretched come from Midrash Vayikra Rabba (ch 13) where it is mentioned as part of an elaborate metaphor, but not in connection with any reason for particularly abhorring the creature. Hope that helps. --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Greek proofing on Wikisource Hi Cas, Would you mind bringing your knowledge of Greek to bear on these three Wikisource pages for me please: [2], [3], [4]? It should only take five minutes I think. If you've got a Wikisource or unified account, you can correct any errors you find; else you can let me know and I'll fix them. Hesperian 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Much obliged. Hesperian 06:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Easy peasy you say... nearly all of the yellow pages on this work contain Greek. s:la:Liber:De assensione Stoici quid senserint.djvu. If you could verify even a few of them, especially p.20, that would be fantastic. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC) You did a good job on p. 20, only one accent switch. I'll have a look later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Hi again, we have a category for them now on English Wikisource: s:Category:Pages with missing Greek characters. The ones in the "Page:" namespace are accompanied by pagescans; the EB1911 pages usually have a link to the pagescan on the talk page. Cheers, John Vandenberg (chat) 23:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Updated Ucontribs I added two columns and refined the scan logic on my most recent run, and since you are the originator of the concept, I re-evaluated you. Feel free to find any problems with the latest update, if you need an incentive, let me just say how disappointed I am that two weeks have passed and it is still not a solid list of FA's :) Also, if you're thinking of asking for a new program to show the changes between runs of my other program - no (at least not yet:). I'm wondering about putting in the latest "failed" status too, as in (Failed GA), but I'd need some category hints to work that in. Thanks for the idea, what a great way to learn about article assessments; the wide range(/incoherence) of category names; and mostly, the great diversity of interests and accomplishments of editors of the wiki! Franamax (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Oh heck. I'll go and reply over there...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) userpage (continuing in this thread despite the different topic) I've skimmed through several categories on commons, like Books and Mappae mundi and Image:Vinland Map HiRes.jpg comes closest to what I think you want. I like the borders, esp. the hue. Unfortunately, it's not easy to lighten and probably not possible at all to remove the ink (I gave it a half-assed try with GIMP). Anyway, just to see if we're on the same page as to your idea. Ideally, several similar but non-identical images of blank pages could be used for something similar to the DT userpage, considering that you have quite a lot of stuff on your userpage (with a different section on each page and some playful navigation). Or did you have something like a central disambiguation in mind, putting all the stuff in different subpages? I envision a self-made treasure map (the real problem would be to get the ragged border to look authentic) with an imagemap overlay on the different words (rendered into the image, possibly handwritten), linking to all the different sections (like on my old userpage or using subpages). And I see a compass rose in one of the corners (bottom right?). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC) (i) I like the font, but I'm not sure how well it would blend into the treasure map concept. (ii) I still can't believe that commons wouldn't have dozens of images like we're looking for among their roughly estimated ten thousand primary and secondary sexual characteristics copyvios. Oh well. On a related note, my GF is a graphic designer, maybe she has an idea where to get such an image, or can help create one that could be filled in. She's also great —professional, actually— with Photoshop, maybe she can alternatively clean up the Vineland map with some of those tools I never use). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Yes, I look for compass roses on commons, too, and I agree this one is nice and can also easily be used to put it in another picture. It's a pity that the background you found isn't free, because then we'd be ready to go. I've asked my GF about the Vineland map, but she said it would take ages to get it right. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Sandwich Tern I see you've taken it on, good work. The display and vision bits at Crested Tern apply for all the genus. The opening sentence isn't fully supported by Bridge - although Elegant is very close, Lesser Crested isn't, other than being in the same genus. I won't abandon this article (after all, one good ... aaaarrrggh, it's catching), but let me know if there's anything specific esp from BWP, Olsen or Harrison, where I have the books. Now, must be time for a couple of slices of bread with some meat in. 10:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Australian figs Been a bit of a spike in editing the few days... Guettarda (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Cute tool that. We'll see how many GAs, DYKs and FAs we can get. Got bits and pieces of horticultural stuff to add yet :) ...just musing on how to bonsai my species... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC) UFOINFO Hi, a site called UFOINFO is used in multiple articles as reference. Do you think it should be considered RS? I cannot see any editorial board or anything by which it can be considered RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Neither can I. I guess next step is googling principal writers to see if they are notable independently. Not really my area. Otherwise the newspaper reports listed on the website themselves may have to serve...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC) perennial user page project How about this? The hue is crap, but it's just a quick edit to see if you like the direction. user:Everyme 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Ooo-arrrr me hearties, it be a fine 'n' tidy start, I be lookin' with keen oyes at what comes next..(seriously looks good, be good if you could make it somehow stretch, as in slot in horizontal bits to keep the bottom pattern at the bottom IYKWIM) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I see a minor typo. It says "Welcome to Casliber's Cove" where it should say "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here." Hesperian 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC) OH you mean like depressive realism or something...ergh....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC) You could use the image as a fixed frame, with a scrollable text frame overlaid within it, and/or you could use it as a frame for different "pages" like my old userpage (the final revision of my old userpage combined both: "individual pages" each with a scrollable "inner" frame for the content of each page. btw: could you do me a favour and restore it? I find I need access to some formatting tricks I've collected there). At any rate, I'm going to work over the hue and upload a version without the text. It'd be possible to clone the middle (blank) part, but the limitations are manifold (apart from the challenge of making it look halfway acceptable): Different browsers and different users prefer wildly different font sizes, so you'd end up with a scrollable frame any way (where people would have to scroll "twice", once within the page and once within the frame) or you'd end up with blank space towards the bottom. user:Everyme 14:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC) At User:Everyme/Casliber, I've installed a simply formatted proposal to get us started. Let me know what you think. My idea is to slowly and occasionally keep exchanging until something you like develops (otherwise until you decide you want something completely different, or to keep the current design). user:Everyme 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I've made it width-scalable. I image a pseudo-frame layout similar to my old page, with the added fun of people clicking the Welcome text to arrive at a table of contents with every entry right next to the inner (text frame) scrollbar, at the point corresponding to the position of that section. Should be great after I brush up the background images. user:Everyme 18:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Banksia sphaerocarpa var. pumilio FloraBase has an entry for this, but no other information.[5] Know anything about it? Hesperian 04:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Never mind; I found it.[6] Hesperian 04:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC) ... and I see your name in the Acknowledgements too.... Hesperian 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC) XD - cool! We were all always arguing about the distinctness of northern ashbyii, and Alex told me about the incana. sphaerocarpa makes my eyes goggle, I knew about latifolia but had no knowledge of pumilio. Wow, must go and read it now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I guess you might want to have a look at this too. Hesperian 11:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Vampire An astute observation about vampires in movies: "I Vant To Upend Your Expectations". --JayHenry (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Nice little read that, need to keep it up me sleeve for those befanged daughter articles was gonna get round to doing for a featured topic sometime...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC) An even better one: A Vampire's Life? It's Really Draining. --JayHenry (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Gawd, gotta get 'round to making all teh befanged stuff a Featured Topic at some stage, a more immediate one is critters in my garden what make drive my dog crazy and make him bark at 5AM...Laughing Kookaburra, Rainbow Lorikeet, Willie Wagtail (FA), Brown Rat (in neighbour's compost bin), Superb Fairy-wren (we..ell, they don't make him bark but they should be included for all-round cuteness)....the first two species have tunnelled a hole in my 6m high date palm and littered the patio with crap. Stupid pooch wants to catch them...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC) BLP cases If you're searching for cases related, I think two of the more important are the Badlydrawnjeff case and the Footnoted quotes case. Footnoted quotes isn't really about BLP content, but it established the "special enforcement" provisions that relate specifically to BLP. The Matthew Hoffman case also wasn't directly about BLPs, but it did get into how we deal with BLP-like problems involving editors and administrators who edit with their real names. Fair amount of interesting discussion in the workshop and on the proposed decision talkpage, although you'll have to wade through neck-deep crap to find it. Going through the closed cases page, here are some links: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sarah_Palin_protection_wheel_war (wheel war on the protection of a high profile BLP) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes (special enforcement provisions) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine (The subject of the case was also the subject of a BLP, Bluemarine edited the article about him almost exclusively and the issues discussed related to his conduct and the leeway given to an article subject) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings (only tangentially related to BLP, mostly "conduct on BLPs" and no new principles that I'm aware of) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey (same basic issue as Bluemarine, subject of a BLP editing Wikipedia) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (prohibits admins from undeleting content removed as violating BLP without full discussion with deleting administrator) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Daniel_Brandt_deletion_wheel_war (More internal drama than anything else, but is specifically about the deletion of a BLP) Those I think are the big cases that deal with BLPs in 2008 and 2007. I'm sure I'm missing one or two, but if you look into them I'm sure any major principles articulated are cited to previous cases if they aren't new. I didn't follow arbitration prior to 2007, and the descriptions aren't very in depth, so I'm not completely sure which if any of the pre-2007 cases apply. I don't recall any being major factors in the above decisions. Avruch T 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Thanks for that, much appreciated. My free time is frustratingly evaporating ATM...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC) A book you might enjoy It's all about flowers ... well, err, kind of. Patricia Fara, Sex, Botany and Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2003). She's a senior tutor in philosophy at Cambridge, written several very entertaining and informative books related to the history of science, probably including her doctorate. But I expect you know of her and this book already. I would have thought it a must read for the Banks-ia Study Group leader. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Hmm, interesting. No I haven't heard of her. I will chase this up :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC) Ah! Glad I mentioned it then. I'm very confident you'll find Patricia's writing as entertaining as it is informative. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Huia - suggestions Re this: "In section "Relationship with humans", can the phrases, "In some legends," and "In other traditions," mention the legends and traditions? Not strictly necessary, I am suggesting this because the above lines are consider Weasel words.". This will be hard to fix since I don't have the book Kotare used - and I wouldn't want to either, probably, since a pet hate of mine is anything which lumps traditions from different regions together without giving the sources. I would suggest getting rid of all of this: In Māori culture, only people of high rank wore Huia feathers.[9] In some legends, the Huia was one of the birds attained from the heavens by Tāwhaki so that his wife could decorate her hair with its feathers; this celestial origin meant that the feathers of the Huia were treated with the greatest respect.[5] In other traditions, the Huia was the leader of the hākuturi, the spirit guardians of the forest, which included Whiteheads and Riflemen.[5] A single Huia feather was worn as a talisman against misfortune. If a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter; if he dreamed of Kōtuku feathers it implied the conception of a son.[5] We could use as a partial source Traditional Maori Stories by Margaret Orbell, Reed 1992, pp82-83, and rewrite as follows: In Māori culture, the "white heron and the huia were not normally eaten but were rare birds treasured for their precious plumes, worn by people of high rank".[ADD ORBELL REF]. <START FOOTNOTE: Orbell mentions some of the sacred associations of the Huia, saying [page 83] that if a man dreamed of a Huia or its feathers, it meant his wife would conceive a daughter.<END FOOTNOTE> We can also add a supporting reference from this page: [7] and could perhaps still add the reference no [9]. Hope this helps Kahuroa (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC) FA collab proposal How 'bout spontaneous combustion? In all seriousness, it seems like an interesting subject. [[WP:QUAKE|₪]]<font face="Gill Sans MT">[[User:Ceranthor|Ceran]]&nbsp;→([[User talk:Ceranthor|slip]]→[[Special:Contributions/Ceranthor|sled]]&nbsp;→[[Special:Emailuser/Ceranthor|snow]])</font> (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Weird...did you actually mean Spontaneous human combustion? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Yea, it does seem weird of me. And yes. I'm sure the FAC people will get a kick out of it, but it has potential. Excuse my demented signature above, accidentally clicked off raw signature. ₪Ceran →(slip→sled →snow) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC) hmmm, got potential. Will need some sources from dead trees, need to go to the library some time, and then...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Vital medicine Hya Cas, i know you're very busy, but Lactarius chrysorrheus could do with a small dose of your taxon to cure a very thin section. Spontaneus human combustion is an urban myth...innit?? Luridiformis (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Moon of Pejeng On 12 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moon of Pejeng, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Thanks for nominating, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Ditto; terima kasih. fyi; due between March 17th and 23rd ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC) The 13th Hey Cas, sorry to see you can't make it to the Powerhouse tomorrow. Your expertise would have proven useful, I'm sure. ;) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Believe me I know, but I am stuck with work. I also dobbed you into someone hehehehe (ask PM and Witty Lama) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Oh, PM intends to come? I thought he was still a bit on the unsure side. But I'll definitely ask Witty what you're on about... *eyes suspiciously*. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC) unsure slid into 'not possible' I'm afraid :-( - but I have an idea what Cas is talking about..... ;-) - I've been sniffing around some contributions to see how it went this arvo, but haven't found any yet - maybe it sort of morphed into something else? (or maybe several wiki volunteers are locked up in the Powerhouse Vault! That's what they were up to - looking for another exhibit!.... who knows.......) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Lion Hey, Cas; Lion is prominently figuring at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Since Marskell isn't around, do you think you can enlist some editors to clean it up? One of the most discouraging aspects of the FAC job has been the realization of how quickly they deteriorate-- I sure hate to see what has happened to that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Pretty minor really - a couple of tags which I fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC) There's still a citation tag in the "Man-eaters" section. Looking good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Bugger. It is morning here and my solitude has been interrupted :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I can't wait until we have a show/hide inline refs function. fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Is there anything left to do I might be able to help with? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I got all four cite tags - you are more than welcome to compare the current version with the c. Sept 2007 version and see if anything else stands out as poorly written, contradictory or other wise odd. I'd appreciate that as I have gotten myself enmired in something else and haev limited time - thanks for the offer. Sorry I haven't helped more with quark, this is a great task you've set yourself and we need to see that one through too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I'm going to compare the featured rev and then the current one, see what's changed there. And no problem, don't even consider it; the sheer quality and amount of featured content you've been producing is incredible, and you're to be congratulated for that. :) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Cool, anything interesting turns up, we can discuss at lion talk page. It is funny watching high traffic Featured Articles 'erode' over time. Great thing about FAC is we have an instant reference point to go back to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Dragonlance GA Hey there! Just letting you know that we have nominated Dragonlance to be a Good Article, and it is currently up for review. :) BOZ (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Russula fellea On 15 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russula fellea, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Russula fragilis On 16 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russula fragilis, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Dravecky (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Buckingham Palace confident? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Err...dunno...see waht happens :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tnxman307 2 I just noticed (after looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Thumperward 2) an oppose !vote by GLFan151 (oppose #1), in which you indef blocked as a sock. Could you please strike that one out, as well, like you already did that with the Thumperward and Baseball Bugs RFAs? (He also !voted support at the Ceranthor RFA, but that is moot since it did not pass.) Thank you, MuZemike 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Good point, will fix. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Jakob Bogdani On March 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jakob Bogdani, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. --Dravecky (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Camperdown Cemetery Hi! Thanks for your help. I've got a blinking problem. I've put Chrys Meader's book down somewhere and can't find it in the mess! Chrys and I were trustees together, so if you've ever done a tour, it may well have been me that took it. What's the name of that lilyish thing with the iris-like flowers, grows in thick clumps with leaves that look like sword grass, but are soft? There is a lovely clump around a tree, and the ground nearby had dionella spreading out... Amandajm (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I have not done a tour )heck, or have I?? Can't remember now). I have been interested in plants of the inner west and reorganised the list of plants here. Are you talking indigenous species? The only thing that comes to mind is Crinum pedunculatum (or is that too big?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Cockatoos Well if there were a single source I would not have put it where I put it. We cannot (at present) put the whole thing in the article. But we can add some of the info. Here's how: Every time we cite a cladistic study, we automatically accept arguments from parsimony. This is not immediately obvious to the novice reader, but if would not accept arguments from parsimony, each and every cladistic analysis is baseless mumbo-jumbo. We could not argue like this if this were Conservapedia or if we'd subscribe to intelligent design - a Creator could invoke any trait out of thin air, without precedent in the ancestors. Whereas if you accept the premises of cladistic studies as valid, it is automatically accepted that anything that is frequent in the basal and rare in the advanced lineages of a clade is presumed to be the ancestral character state because "it is more parsimonious" to assume a single origin than multiple origins. So we can take all the phylogenetics papers that have been published - as we'll do anyway - and arrive at a consensus phylogeny. And we can reference the appearance of all cockatoos with a single source - Juniper/Parr, HBW, Forshaw/Cooper for example (I would not prefer HBW here, as the other sources are more detailed) and cross-refer them to the consensus phylogeny. And then we can say "It is notable that among the basal lineages, the following plumage patterns are generally seen: ... This suggests that it is most parsimonious that such plumage was already present in the last common ancestor of all living cockatoos." We could cite some phylogenetics textbook's part on character evolution for this, but we don't cite a physics textbook's part on gravity either any time some article mentions something falling down. Taking this, we can note that certain plumage patterns are seen in (almost) all the basal lineages and only lost in the advanced lineages. "Almost" because the question of why Probosciger is aterrimus ("the blackest") is unresolved. So we cannot be certain about details, but we can point out that all the data contradicts certain patterns of plumage evolution pretty certainly. As regards the original cockatoos, what is unparsimonious would for example be: Absence of barring, in particular in the tail feathers. Absence of intense carotenoid coloration on the head, especially the ear region. Some elongation of the crown feathers (though this need not have been a crest - something like seen in Deroptyus would fit the bill just as well). Absence of any carotenoid coloration outside head and undertail coverts (i.e. body plumage pure black, grey or white without any brownish hue). What we can also use is one of the psittaciform phylogenies that puts the NZ clade at the base (which is essentially any modern psittaciform phylogeny) as corroborating evidence - a cryptic pattern involving some degree of barring is appartently plesiomorphic for all crown Psittaciformes (and I suspect for all Psittaciformes in general). In any case, one thing needs to be noted: the placement of the Cockatiel is not determinable with certainty at present! (IIRC one possibility is slightly more likely than the other, but I'd have to sift through all the papers to find out which. Given how singular it is, even that cannot be regarded as proof; we need fossil evidence from near the point where the Cockatiel branched off from the other lineages, and we do not have this.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Gang Gang might actually not warrant inclusion in either subfamily - while the analysis results for the Cockatiel are contradictory because you can get quite good support for either possibility (IIRC), Callocephalon simply refuses to fit into the "nice" dichotomies phylogenetics software will try to construct. As regards the synthesis stick, my take is with WP:BURDEN - it is pretty hard to challenge the obvious (namely that some taxon has some phenotypical traits), especially considering Felsenstein's "Phylogenies and the comparative method" (which should provide sufficient justification for a "naive" character mapping) gets cited in scholarly works on average once every three days since 24 years... Note though that as soon as the phylogeny gets contentious, a dedicated source is surely needed - see for example the very fine paper here. One can actually turn the burden of evidence, in this case for example: "provide a source that suggests that the LCA of cockatoos was all-white/all-black". Otherwise, where would one stop? The conclusion that chimpanzees were never bipedal in their evolution is generally accepted at face value by precisely the same reasoning, although there is simply not a single shred of material evidence to support this assumption: no fossils on the chimp side of the lineage are known, and the fossils on the human side of the lineage are all (at least preferentially) bipedal. But as I said, claims cannot be made with finality as long as there is no study where Probosciger tail and cheek feathers have been photographed in UV or observed under a SEM. What we can do at this point is to observe the obvious, describe the situation as far as can be plainly seen. PS: the molphyl/clock studies of psittaciforms and the fossil record square NO WAY, you guys gotta be careful. The recent "proves Cretaceous" paper was technically far better as I thought, but in the context of Wikipedia it would be accused on severe POVpushing... For one thing, the Cretaceous scenario together with the molphyl trend to put them close to passeriforms (which may well be good, though I suppose not as close as the first large-scale trees suggest) puts the origin of a lot of birdy stuff into the Mesozoic nether regions. Also, a lot of fossils that ought to be there have not turned up, I mean not even traces in well-studied regions. And finally, the entire theory is probabilistic, but if that other paper on Cenozoic NZ and sea levels is right (it is cited off-handedly in the Cretaceous paper), the probability for a deep Mesozoic origin of the Psittaciformes is around 2.769126%ish ;-) (it is hard for kakapo ancestors to survive on a submerged microcontinent...) If they had titled it "cannot refute a Cretaceous origin", I'd have been delighted. But this way, it is just like the bad old times of molphyl 15 years ago -trying to outrace each other with data with a signal/noise ratio that reaches abysmality after 100 Ma. Today's work: smelly frogs, or so it seems. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Gyromitra esculenta What a beautiful mushroom! Nice work. I look forward to more FAs on poisonous mushrooms. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC) OK - PS: Amanita muscaria just Featured (>2 years after beginning to impriove it) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC) BLP concerns Would this need to go through AfD in order to be deleted? Enigmamsg 02:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I would think so. A quick google suggests there are some references from sources out there and a suggestion of notability. I would alert the Indian Wikiproject...but right now I need to eat some lunch. I suspect an AfD would not result in deletion, but might hasten the aggressive removal of unreferenced claims (or you could do that now). Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) It's a typical unreferenced and possibly defamatory BLP. I guess I could try and clean up every one out there, but I would need to get rid of all my responsibilities for the next week so I could edit Wikipedia all day, every day. :P Enigmamsg 02:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Ok, how's this? If totally unreferenced, add a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion tag, with a reason that it is bordering on defamatory (well it is if it is untrue) and notify anyone who may be interested (eg WP:India). If there are references, move mateiral that is unreferenced to the talk page. PS: I feel much better after a luchtime snack of crispy skin pork, duck, rice and vegetables :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) OK, I PRODd it. Tag expires in less than a day. By the way, Royce Campbell. Can you figure out what to do with that one? Enigmamsg 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Lactarius chrysorrheus On 20 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lactarius chrysorrheus, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. The nominators will inherit for they are blessed! Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Re: ACID thanks for the heads-up. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC) no probs, I was (and still am) hoping that this gets up a bit of steam and a few broader-type articles get to GA or FA...leaving me to do more of my other mob. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) It should be fun. If nothing else, it'll be the first "important" article I've ever worked on (unless you consider a minor storm thousands of miles out in the Pacific or a 6-mile road important). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC) radioactive user talk page... Here, have one of these - 50k and five years...wow. congrats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much, Cas! :) I feel radioactive already! Hey, how are things going for you? What's new? Do you like the ArbCom? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) rather busy....but I did chisel out some time to revive WP:ACID to try and get editors to imporve some broader articles...PS: you did see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edmontosaurus? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC) I hadn't seen WP:ACID... It would be great to improve more articles. I did see Edmontosaurus, and am working a bit behind the scenes to add improvements as editors on the FAC suggest them. It's quite exciting to see J. nom another article! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Will do! Firsfron of Ronchester 23:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Some Arbs are sadly out of touch - or maybe it's me :) Where have you been? And how did you get any results at all from wannabe_kate? It's dead, dead, dead - but still linked from a million places. I've been waging this war for several months now. Interiot left the scene long ago, and when I contacted them they asked where I got their contact information - so that they could remove their contact information. The wannabe_kate software used hardcoded namespaces (failed on the File: change), didn't use the API, and had a fall-through algorithm that counted anything not recognized as other-space as mainspace - I spotted at least one huge (non-Image:) miscount there, which is when I began the death-march. Dead, dead, dead. Shoot on sight. </rant> For general counting, you can use real Kate (~river on the toolserver) or the generally accepted soxtool where I miss Interiots's Christmas-y red-and-green motif. And now that I look at it, sox was in on those supercession discussions but their output doesn't look as good as it used to. Strange how tools that people store links to and use regularly come and go with no great discussion. (And sorry for the rant, it's just 'cause I seemed to be the first to spot the wannabe_kate problems and start jumping up and down) On the uContribs topic, noted. That's a whole 'nother subject of guilt where I feel an obligation to several people, I have to satisfy them in order, and I need to make software tweaks first and Oh God do documentation! If I bail on the upgrades, I will do the requests in order and notify you in turn. I just need to figure out these template/locator maps first, deal with a few minor disputes people are having, look at a new user who I've encouraged to contribute. Less than 40 things, I promise. Then uContribs, I promise ;) Maybe more than 40, but let me express my sincere desire. lol Also, nice Arb'ing! Given your top article edits to lions, vampires, toxic mushrooms, mental illness &c, I was seriously thinking of calling in Bishzilla for a cage match. You would have multiple avenues of attack OTOH I still haven't stretched my window large enough that Bish wouldn't fill it completely. :) Franamax (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC) hah, thanks for the reply - look forward to souped up ucontribs :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC) edit links on your user page First poke; I did 'Articles' and 'DYK'. On 'Articles' you have 'show' the box to see the edit link (which is built into the subpage), on 'DYK' the link is in the main page and always shows. Which way you like? It will be easy to do them all either way. nb: some talk page stalker may offer a canned tool to do this; I couldn't use tnavbar as it assumes template space. Cleanest route would probably be to use real headers and let MediaWiki generate the links but your page has momentum in other directions. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Cool. either way is ok. Like DYK is probably best. Hurriedly, thx ++, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)  Done. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Fantastic, much appreciated...now for some shut-eye. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC) fyi; other large chunks could be split-off to subpages, the two sections of the right column, for example. The main body content, too. Let me know. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Oversight help Hi. I had sent a request for oversight assistance two or three hours ago and am basically waiting up to see if it brings a response or there is anything I need to add. I noted you are listed on oversight and thought I'd ask if there is anything you can do about it. This situation is quite upsetting. I'd be glad to send a copy of my oversight email. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC) dyk It ain't the most exciting hook, but I can't think of anything better myself. I made a distribution map for it. Hesperian 11:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC) About barley I left you note here. I've also started a stub on Murri (condiment) which you may find interesting. I'll try to add some stuff to Barley, but if you find yourself getting impatient, feel free to mine the sources I linked to yourself. Tiamuttalk 11:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that - I see a T:TDYK nomination a-comin' for Murri (condiment)....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Four Award Four Award Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Amanita ocreata. ♠TomasBat 12:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Nice design! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC) New mushroom articles There's been new mushrooms article popping up on DYK and, how to say it... they leave somewhat to be desired. That's the third time at least that I fix glaring authority errors (I think they just copy-pasted it from another 'box!) and some really weird use of the taxobox (e.g. slotting the species in the "type species" of a genus format at Agaricus lilaceps). Just saying so you may want to keep an eye out from time to time. Circeus (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Aha, a new person....ok, wil have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) GFDL question Hi. I left a WP:GFDL question at User talk:A Nobody#Next time.., regarding the Neopets content. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Please excuse my interjection: isn't unattributable content incompatible with WP:GFDL? I recently approached an admin concerning a similar situation (content from a deleted article, but via Google Cache), and he blanked the content in question. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC) —copied for convenience Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC) DYK help Dear Cas, can you help this fact become a DYK? Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Oakdale, Texas — The problem with TV cruft See the 'article' — and note that there is, in fact, a real Oakdale, Texas. It would seem to be little more than a neighborhood, but it has a postal code (75931), and Google knows it. So does the Texas State Historical Association; Handbook of Texas Online - OAKDALE, TX. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Help proofreading I am working on a list and wanted to know if you would proofread the text for me? If available, I would appreciate your feedback. Regardless, thank you for your help on wikipedia. kilbad (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Fixation bordering on harassment and escalation of tensions by User:Jack Merridew Dear Casliber, although I am trying to avoid this editor, he is retaining a disruptive fixation on me that includes leaving messages about "cruft" on my talk page and in multiple venues mischaracterizing my edits and referring to me by my old username, including in a mocking manner. JM was unblocked so that he could make constructive edits, not refer to editors by their old usernames. I don't refer to him by his old usernames and in my case I changed names for a serious reason. Not long after his being unblocked he was warned to not refer to me by the old username. I therefore believe that he is violating the arbcom agreement by watching my edits, ignoring my and others appeals that I be referred to as "A Nobody" only and leaving unwelcome messages to me as well. Like I am going to respond to someone on my talk page who is taking a laughing tone toward me elsewhere? Please reign him in. I will start an ANI thread or something if necessary, but I am here to edit, not be harassed. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC) R-t Diver Hi Cas: Just back from three back to back trips (Mexico, Sri Lanka, Costa Rica) but now should have the time to polish it up before month's end. I'll need some eyeballs to have a look before I send it off to GAC—care to volunteer?! :) MeegsC | Talk 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Wow, great trip. Will have a once-over. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Banksia lindleyana On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Banksia lindleyana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Agaricus subrufescens This medical mushroom article has seen significant change lately if you'd like to have a boo.LeadSongDog come howl 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Will try to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Meetup time again Hi all, it's Meetup time again :-) - Hopefully you'll be up for meeting on April 22nd at about 6pm at The Paragon, a pub in Circular Quay. It'll be the usual round of drinks and chit chats, with no particular agenda, just some friendly faces, and a shared interest in Wiki stuff. If you've thought about coming along before, but haven't made it - we'd love to see you - it'll be a relaxed, social chin wag about all things wiki - bring anyone along you fancy, and I hope you can make it :-) Please do sign up on the meetup page, and do also feel free to nominate an alternative time / date / location if for whatever reason the 21st doesn't work for you - we're an accommodating bunch :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC) id Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#IDs_2. Hesperian 10:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I noticed you are a psychiatrist Hi, I was just reading the schizophrenia page and noticed this section Schizophrenia#Drugs, where it claims that there is little evidence to suggest that drugs of abuse other than cannabis is related with causing psychosis. Although it was a review paper I find what they state very dubious. This reference suggests an 800% increased risk in men and 300% increased risk in women (cannabis abuse only suggests a 40% increased risk). This review also mentions schizophrenia specifically in regards to alcohol. What about LSD and magic mushrooms, much more potent hallucinogens than cannabis, are they relatively safe in terms of not triggering psychosis? Or amphetamines, particularly neurotoxic methamphetamine? Chronic ketamine and/or PCP (aka angel dust) are other drugs associated with psychosis. I dunno, I just feel that that section is very misleading to patient and health professional alike, but it is backed up by a review paper. I don't have the full text paper so I can't say how they reached there conclusions. Anyway I noticed that you were a psychiatrist, so I thought that I would discuss this with you first before. My feeling is that the research grants are mostly getting granted for cannabis psychosis related research and the journals and media are focusing on cannabis to the exclusion of other worse drugs which also cause psychosis or even sometimes permanent brain damage. What are your thoughts? Should it be challenged? I am hesitent to challenge the statement in the article after getting in such a big debate on the major depressive article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I can only talk about what we see here clinically in Australia - the commonness of marijuana and amphetamines and the pattern of use (i.e. much more frequently that things like LSD), mean they are the substances most commonly seen associated with entities such as drug induced psychosis. This is a hotly debated topic in psychiatry as to whether these drugs cause psychosis or whether those who go onto develop schizophrenia would have anyway. Then again, given a stress model, stressors are ubiquitous so maybe that means yes...or no. There is a clear consensus that use of these drugs makes the course of the illness worse. One way to discuss the subject with as much consensus as possible would be to improve the psychosis article (which was a Featured Article once), where entities such as drug use, drug induced psychosis and schizophrenia can be really gone into detail. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I am aware of the debate surrounding cannabis. I have known people to have become psychotic from heavy duty cannabis use but mostly they recovered after a few weeks to months of abstinence. I do believe though that alcohol is more destructive to mental health than cannabis so I do have a bit of bias there in my viewpoint. I was just reading again the cited reference and this is what it says, "There is evidence to suggest that cannabis may have a causal role in the development of psychopathology but not for other substances." They actually use the word psychopathology, so what they are saying is all other drugs of abuse have no adverse effects on mental health except for cannabis. Psychopathology if I am correct covers any aspect of mental illness, not just schizophrenia. I wonder were the review authors suffering from cannabis induced psychosis. :) I just don't see how they could review the literature and come to the conclusion that only cannabis has bad effects on mental health. I agree with the consensus that cannabis would make paranoid states worse and should be avoided in people with psychotic disorders. I made a few tweaks to the psychosis article and added some info on alcohol related psychosis. I also found this reference about alcoholic psychosis (which apparently doesn't exist according to schizophrenia wiki article as only cannabis is bad for mental health) having the potential to being misdiagnosed as schizophrenia.[8] I dunno may be I am getting too enthusiastic about all this wiki editing, I hope I am not bothering you with this.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Alcoholic hallucinosis was a name for alcohol-related psychosis used by older psychiatrists which didn't enter DSM IV specifically. You do see it occasionally but nothing like the frequency with cannabis or amphetamine. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Schizophrenia is a type of psychosis, so perhaps the persisting amphetamine psychosis alcoholic hallucinosis would be classified differently but just the statement that other drugs don't cause psychosis bothers me in the schizophrenia article. Maybe I should just bring it up on the talk page. Thank you for your time.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) and/or alco Ms. van der Linde Hi, Cas. You referred to Kim van der Linde as "him", but here's a picture. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Oops :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Peer reviewing I suspect that you are now very busy with ArbCom matters, but I spotted your name near the top of WP:Peer review/volunteers#Natural sciences and wondered if you are still reviewing? I'm hoping to take Oxygen toxicity as my first try at FAC, but I'm a scuba diver, not a medic and would really appreciate some constructive criticism. If you don't have time for this, I fully understand, but would you have any thoughts on someone else sympathetic I could ask? Or is it best to just list the article at WP:Peer review? Thanks in advance for any advice. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC) I will have a look but noting it at WT:MED might be more help too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much; I've asked at WT:MED now - much appreciated! --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Sockpuppet allegation by User:Pixelface fyi, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bad faith and baseless accusations by User:Pixelface Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC) CfD nomination of Category:Inedible mushrooms I have nominated Category:Inedible mushrooms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Inedible fungi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Fictional character DYK, Good, and Featured drive suggestion Hello! Please see User_talk:Pixelface#Something_different_to_work_on as I believe you can perhaps be helpful in these efforts! For example, what about with this? As you can see I expanded the article considerably? Could we ask, "Did you know that Will Kane's was Gary Cooper's second Academy Award winning role?" or "Did you know that Will Kane is ranked fourteenth on Entertainment Weeklys list of Top 20 Heroes of all time?" Thanks! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Snuppy Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the review. I had been meaning to do some more work on it but couldn't find the time. Cheers, ~ Ameliorate! 02:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Man, I can't get over that photo of the two dogs together...just amazing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC) DYK for Murri (condiment) On 28 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murri (condiment), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC) question Hi, Would you be interested in volunteering some time and expertise to help the Wikimedia Foundation in a collaboration with the National Institutes of Health? I unfortunately do not have a lot of details to give at this time, but in short, I'm looking for a group of Wikimedians (primarily US or UK based, but that's not a requirement) that have interest or expertise in various medical fields, to help participate in a Wikimedia Academy event with the NIH. Even if you don't think you'd be able to attend the event, but would be interested in helping out online in any capacity, I'd love to hear back from you. Please leave a message on my talk page at User talk:Swatjester if you are interested. Thank you. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Lorazepam You undo my edit when I'd merely changed the absurd phrase "unborn baby" to the correct medical term: fetus. An article on a medication should use medical terms rather than forced-birth propaganda. 67.100.203.155 (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)